Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Food-stamp post goes viral

Providence College student Christine Rousselle has become an internet sensation with a blog post in The College Conservative discussing the use of food stamps she saw while working at a Wal-Mart in Maine:

Other things witnessed while working as a cashier included:

a) People ignoring me on their iPhones while the state paid for their food. (For those of you keeping score at home, an iPhone is at least $200, and requires a data package of at least $25 a month. If a person can spend $25+ a month so they can watch YouTube 24/7, I don’t see why they can’t spend that money on food.)

b) People using TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) money to buy such necessities such as earrings, kitkat bars, beer, WWE figurines, and, my personal favorite, a slip n’ slide. TANF money does not have restrictions like food stamps on what can be bought with it.

This is a topic to get blood boiling on all sides, as I learned when I wrote about it a little more than a year ago and received lots of responses, including a furious letter from a beneficiary:

If I have a few dollars' worth of food stamps left at the end of the month and I want to buy a package of Tofutti Cuties, Skinny Cows, or a pint of Soy Dream or even, god forbid, Ben and Jerry's--what the hell business is it of yours or anyone else's?!?!

Posted at 05:51:03 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

a) if you're locked into a contract that might have started pre-food-stamps, then why not use it?

b) Needy families have kids who'd like toys etc...just look at the hoohaha about the Toys for Tots fiasco in Bridgeview. What, poor people shouldn't buy toys or candy at all?

c) don't know about Wal-Mart, but there are rules that supermarkets are supposed to follow regarding what exactly can be purchased with food stamps---sounds like some Wal-mart employees (too busy dressing down customers amongst themselves maybe) aren't keeping up with their item master maintenance. As for buying steaks with food stamps...Dominicks regularly puts out meat, including steaks, that is at or very near its expiration date in a closeout section, marked down 50% or more, often to a lower price per pound than hamburger. Just because it's steak means you can't buy it if you're poor?

I really dislike holier-than-thou's - which, perhaps falsely, but at least to me, seems to include most so-called 'conservatives'.

--She's a liar. Her post admits (or at least strongly implies) that she rang up items ineligible for WIC as WIC items. So she's either committed welfare fraud herself or lying about having witnessed it. Given that her "observations" track so closely with her obvious ideological inclinations, I see no reason to credit any of this inflammatory story as true. Reminds me of that nut who carved the backwards B into her face and blamed it on black Obama supporters.

ZORN REPLY -- I don't see this implication in her post at all. Can you quote me the passage where you think she admits to participating in fraud?
What about these anecdotes strike you as false or even false-sounding? Do you think it's unlikely that food-stamp users have iPhones? Buy Kit-Kat bars and giant cakes?

You'll note that the question about the "family cap rule" says that children born after 10 months after a family applied to TAFDC are not eligible for benefits. So even if the guy she said showed her his Massachusetts welfare card got it on the last day of Dukakis' administration (1/3/91), any children he had ten months after that (11/1/91) would have turned 18 in 2009, before she started working at Walmart. He could not possibly have been on welfare from 1991 to 2010. This is the first verifiable fact she states in her piece, and it's demonstrably false.

ZORN REPLY -- I think you're conflating two stories. The children are in a different anecdote.

Well, I do know that TANF is not "welfare" as people think of the stereotype. In order to receive it, recipients have to work, which means they get assigned to some random job which, when you total the benefit vs. the hours worked, comes out to less than minimum wage. It's a scam really. Employers love to get contracted TANF workers, which is one of the reasons they love high unemployment.

That alone would be a worthy investigative project for some intrepid journalist. There was an Open Salon post about this about a month or so ago. If I can track it down, I'll link it.

The idea that people who have other sources of income would choose to go on TANF is ludicrous, and I doubt very seriously that the benefit covers too many extravagances.

So, yeah, I call foul on this post and I'm really tired of the conservative meme that poor people (especially in this economy!) are really just raking it in and sleeping on piles of cash or something. Projection much?

One thing I have never understood is how so many teenagers on the train have sophisticated phones they are using constantly. I make a decent income and just can't believe how much I lay out for my phone and data and usage. Trying not to be curmudgeonly, but where do they get the cash?

ZORN REPLY -- I don't see this implication in her post at all. Can you quote me the passage where you think she admits to participating in fraud?

Right here:
"Extravagant purchases made with food stamps; including, but not limited to: steaks, lobsters, and giant birthday cakes."

If she's ringing up such products then she's ripping off the system.

That's not to say that I agree that steaks and such are "extravagant". Some meats called steaks are fairly cheap, think the flat ribeyes you get at Mexican sandwich shops. And giant birthday cakes, especially the Walmart variety, are dirt cheap. What is her problem?

Let's talk about how her obesity is going to rip off the medical insurance policies of other American workers; how we're going to have to pay extra for her extra weight. As long as we're being judgmental.

ZORN REPLY -- I believe her point is that those on food stamps (LINK cards, etc) are allowed to purchase "steaks, lobsters, and giant birthday cakes" with taxpayer money.
From her photo, I'd say the writer is, at worse, a little zaftig, but hardly "obese." I think you're just being a jerk.

I submitted a long comment about why I think this article is deceitful - perhaps it's in moderation. Hope I didn't swear!

To answer your basic question, I don't think it's implausible that people use taxpayer benefits to buy twix bars and birthday cakes. That's not ideal, but I'm not convinced that it's a very big problem or that it's worth incurring the extra cost that would be involved in stopping it, which I think would probably be substantial. I'm sure some people on public assistance have smartphones, but I don't think that's necessarily a problem at all (you can get an old iphone on ebay for $20-$100).

Orwell wrote about the phenomenon of the very poor spending their money on luxuries in his "Road to Wigan Pier" (page 87-90 in the Google Books version) He makes two basic points: first, luxuries are often cheaper than necessities; and second, for those people who are likely to be poor all their lives, the luxuries are necessary to cope with all of the horrible things they have to deal with. I found that pretty reasonable, but I'm sure others disagree.

If this woman was allowing shoppers to purchase ineligible products at her cash register she is as guilty as the cashier that rings up alcohol for minors.

I guess I just don't get what these people expect from the poor...should they huddle under worn blankets because they've turned their heat down to the bare minimum? Should they be perpetually hungry; gaunt and withered? Should their children go shoeless in the snow? Should they go to the back of the checkout line if someone paying with real money comes up behind them in line?

This is just classism, where the lords of the land expect lock-pulling and constant affirmation from the less fortunate, temporary though their status is hoped to be.

1) Of course there are going to be some people either flat-out abusing the system or making purchases that, while legal, cause many of us to grind our teeth in frustration.

2) I wonder about confirmation bias in this author's case. She must have rung up thousands of transactions. May she have been noticing or remembering the ones that fit her politics? Did she remember, or even know about in the first place, the extravagant purchases by shiftless heirs of large fortunes that she likely believes should not be subject to estate taxes? (Not that all such heirs are shiftless but certainly some are and certainly inheriting a fortune can be a disincentive to work.)

This story cuts both ways. If you buy into the writer's view, welfare corrupts. Maybe that's true.

But couldn't this just as easily show that some people can't be trusted to make the right decisions--in which case, maybe they should be subject to additional government regulation. That doesn't sound very conservative to me. Hmmm.

I believe welfare fraud exists. I also believe working people steal office supplies. I don't see that as a reason to end either welfare or work.

What I find interesting in tales like this one is the apparent attitude among people like her that the real problem with poverty in America is that it isn't degrading enough. As if, in a nation with high unemployment, there's a secret stash of jobs going wanting because welfare families aren't sufficiently humiliated.

How dare these families celebrate birthdays with high-class Walmart cakes? And, oh my goodness, slip and slides? They're on welfare, for crying out loud, they should just wait until it rains and go slide down a gutter.

--BTW, just who is paying for Miss Rousselle to go to college? Mommy and Daddy, I'm guessing. So apparently it's okay to use other people's money to buy luxuries, as long as it's just Mommy and Daddy.

Or if she is using student loans (which are taxpayer subsidized), she'd better hope she finds a job afterward. Something higher paying than Wal-Mart clerk. Student loan debt starts coming due six months after graduation whether or not one finds a suitable job. But hey, if she doesn't find a job, she won't need to go on food stamps. She can always eat her words. And I hope she chokes.

ZORN REPLY -- Dienne, this is a terrible argument!
The point is not that it's ipso facto wrong to use "other people's money" for certain purposes, but that those purposes either be necessary and salutary or that the money has been willingly designated by the "other" for that purpose.
There is exactly no connection at all between a kid going to college on her parents' dime -- an investment they are making in her future analogous to every other investment they've made in her future since she was born -- and taxpayers in effect subsidizing iPhones and Kit-Kat bars for the poor.
Similarly, student loan programs are seen as social investments in the nation's future. And to the extent those might be used frivolously, then yes.

It's not surprising that a program like food stamps could be abused, and those who abuse it do deserve our scorn. But so do tax cheats. So do companies who extort tax benefits from states by threatening to leave. So do certain members of Congress whose obstructionist agenda is putting 2012 politics ahead of what's best for the country. So do industries which receive unnecessary subsidies and price supports. There are many hands in the till, and the poor folks at the Wal-Mart in Maine, or anywhere, are playing such a miniscule part.

The sensation around this woman's blog post does smell a lot like some more home cooking by the Right. Let's get people talking about those awful poor folks, what millstones they are. Yeah, them and the Mexicans. It's their fault were in this mess. So much coddling. And it's Obama been coddling them. He's one of them. He's black and he loves those people. Boy, we're getting fired up. All this fear and loathing makes me angry, and, more important, ready to pass on viral emails to all my friends about how much Obama hates America and "real" Americans. Heck, he isn't even American himself! He's a Muslim! He has a Muslim middle name (it's "Hussein," everybody, "Hussein," do you hear me?) his daddy was some kind of African and he was raised in some Islamic school in Indonesia or something. The is the "end of America," our country is going to hell. What happened back in November 2008? We woke up and a black man was president. By golly, it's time to do something about it!

Dienne, that is an extremely illogical argument, but it certainly reflects a mindset that an adult should be able to act like a child (not work, be irresponsible), and expect the government to be like Mommy and Daddy and pay for that person for as long as he wants.

While I certainly don't condone this kind of practice, it seems to me that lately welfare has been commandeered by conservatives as a red herring in any discussions about the economy (ENTITLEMENTS!). At the Federal level, welfare is about 13%, including unemployment and workers compensation. At the state level, welfare is at about 9%. I don't think these are extravagant (they could probably be lower), especially given the current economic state.

Okay, the argument was poorly made. But the point is that it's sickening to hear this privileged and pampered little girl who has no life experience (other than college, which, again, she has the privilege of having someone else pay for) and has never in her life wondered where her next meal is coming from go on about alleged welfare abuses, especially considering that she apparently has no concern at all for the much greater bank and corporate abuses that we all pay for and which are very often the reason why people are on food stamps and TANF to begin with.

Are you sitting? Seriously, you ought to sit down for this one. I'm going to defend the welfare beneficiary who responded to Eric in his prior thread.

What business is it of ours what welfare recipients spend their money on? Why do we assume that a government bureaucrat in Washington or Springfield, or you and I, are in a better position to decide what a person needs than that person himself?

I'm a conservative who believes that we need a welfare system, but that we should radically reform it. My idea is to cut all social services, cut all food stamps, etc. and instead give cash payments. Not only would this empower welfare recipients to make their own choices but it would drastically reduce the administrative costs of providing services. Let's agree on a number (no easy task, I admit), qualifications (same), and then distribute cash to those who qualify. When that cash runs out for the period in which it's distributed, that's it - we've done our duty as taxpayers and if you spent it unwisely then you need to rely on private assistance. The only way to meaningfully cut down on fraud is to increase accountability and my plan does exactly that.

While I'm at it, I'm going to defend part of Dienne's comment too. Why is the federal government in the business of providing student loans? Eric believes it's because it represents a social investment in the nation's future. Ok, I can swallow that argument as far as high school but not for college. Currently, we have far too many people in college who will come out with useless degrees in art history, sports management, and lesbian literature, and not be able to find jobs. Why is the government subsidizing this again? We need fewer people in college and more people in trade schools, but as long as the government keeps pushing four year college by offering these loans and scholarships, we are promoting an inefficient allocation of resources.

No surprise to anyone that I agree with GregJ. If we're going to provide welfare payments to needy people (and we should), it should be in cash for them to do with it as they see fit, besides getting rid of the overhead costs.

Also agree with the point about student loans, which create at least two problems:; 1) An oversupply of college students (many of whom will not graduate and are there to goof off), and 2) An incentive for colleges to increase tuition at a rate faster than inflation, which they have done and is the fundamental reason why it is so damn expensive to go to college these days.

On another point, Christmas came early for MCN this year: He is now employed.

Congratulations on your new job, MCN. You beat me to the punch about tuition inflation, which I was going to add as another problem with subsidized education loans. As for restrictions on the use of welfare benefits, I agree that vouchers redeemable for goods and services in the private sector are superior to having the government attempt to provide the services itself, but I do not see reasonable restrictions on the vouchers use as being problematic. I see no problem with preventing food stamps from being used on, say, liquor, tobacco, bass boats, etc.

I'm just curious how TANF works such that the cashier would know that the person is using TANF money. I thought that it took the form of a check. Maybe it's loaded onto a card. In any event, I don't see why a TANF recipient may never buy the things referred to -- never buy a candy bar, earrings, or, yeah, even beer. Are TANF recipients to be denied *every* modest comfort or amusement the rest of us take for granted because they are facing hardship, the legitimacy and sympathetic nature of which is not something easily gathered from across the counter at Wal-Mart?

Take the slip 'n' slide -- her "favorite" example of taxpayer-financed excess. Are children of the poor to be prohibited wholesome, '60s-era toys (with a Wal-Mart pricetag of $17.88)? What's next in this parade of profligacy? A jump-rope? ($9.99 at Wal-Mart.) I propose a new regulation: every recipient of TANF funds shall be restricted, toy-wise, to one box of chalk ($6.88), which needy children can use to play government-approved versions of hopscotch -- no French spiral versions.

An iPhone seems fancy, but you actually get a ton of value for a fairly small initial pricetag. It's not just a YouTube-watching device. For the price of a small, crappy television, you get a small, crappy television, plus a very useful communication device, one that can be used for sober as well as entertaining activities. Are the poor to be prohibited mobile data plans in this day and age? A landline -- never seen as a luxury -- would be a bigger waste of money. But you can't use a landline to engage in activities that people like this woman will begrudge and resent -- like *being entertained* on the taxpayer dime.

Some of this sort of criticism starts to leave a sour taste -- as in, if you're struggling in life, and taking assistance, you must act penitent and sober, your clothes can't be remotely nice, you are not permitted vanity or idle chatter, you may not seek entertainment, you may not relax, you may not participate in cultural activities, you may not have a sweet tooth. It almost seems as though you must be a thin, white guy with puppy-dog eyes and a hole in his hat, standing in a breadline in a black and white photo.

I don't think that TANF is very generous after welfare reform, though I admit ignorance as to the details. I'm pretty sure that that there are now time limits and work requirements. Likewise, I don't know that food stamps are a great bounty. And I don't think that either program is the main driver behind serious budget concerns, even as they certainly provide needed assistance and even help the economy by keeping dollars flowing. So, I think it's all a side-show.

And to think lobster was once the food of the servant classes, looked down upon, dirt cheap. What the heck happened? Isn't it just a big crawfish? Wonder what the people down in and around Louisiana would say if someone said crawfish was too high-falutin for welfare recipients.

Just glad they're using their food stamps at Walmart and not Whole Foods.

As for college loans, I think college costs are just another bubble waiting to burst, like the housing market. Fed by easy credit and questionable underlying values.

I see only one potentially thorny issue: if someone blows their public assistance (negative income tax) allowance on things other than life's necessities, what happens to their children? (I assume that on the question of feeding, sheltering and clothing children we are less likely to have serious disagreement across the non-lunatic political spectrum.) Do they become wards of the state? It may well be the right answer, but it probably is a controversial one.

ZORN REPLY -- It strikes me that this is in some way a variation on the school voucher issue: In that case, liberals want the state to limit how dollars earmarked for education are spent; conservatives favor the Greg J. approach, to a point, saying no, give parents a coupon to redeem at the school of their choice.
Greg J. and others who advocate just handing the needy a check and saying, "Here, buy candy, buy booze, buy cigarettes or buy the top-end cable TV package...if you end up starving to death, well, that's your fault."
So why not go all the way with this idea when it comes to education? Give every parent $10,000 a year, no strings attached, for each school-aged child in their house. They can home school and keep the dough, use it as a down payment on the priciest private academy, find a really cheap-o school and spend the rest on lottery tickets....the free market at work!
Who's on board with that idea?

I like how her "favorite" example of excess is the use of TANF money for a Slip 'n' Slide. Are poor children to be denied wholesome, 18-dollar, '60s era toys from the good people at Wham-O? What's next in this parade of profligacy? A jump rope? I think that we should restrict TANF funds, toy-wise, to a 5-dollar box of chalk (white) which poor children may use to play government-approved versions of hop-sotch. None of that trippy French spiral nonsense, just to be clear. Freedom-scotch only. No public funds for Escargot! If you *really* behave yourself, we might let you have a ball-in-a-cup.

Come to think of it, how does she know that the customers are using TANF money? I don't have any idea how it works, but I thought that TANF was basically a check. If it's loaded onto a card, might one have non-government assistance money on that card? Just asking.

In any case, these sorts of complaints leave a sour taste. Are those who take assistance prohibited *every* modest comfort or amusement? It's as though she's saying that if you face difficulty in life -- the legitimacy and sympathetic nature of which is near-impossible to judge from her vantage point -- you are not allowed to have a sweet tooth, not allowed vanity, not allowed to be *entertained*. No, your clothes had better be ragged and dirty, you had better be a thin, white guy with puppy-dog eyes and a hole in his hat, and you had better be standing in a bread line in a black-and-white photo from 80 years ago. We'll help *that* guy. He's correct. If you lack such outward displays of Dickensian bona fides -- if you're talking on a smart phone, for goodness sake -- well then, you clearly don't need any help. No mobile data plans for the poor. Expensive land lines only! Sure, they're a relative waste of money, but you can't use them to do things that Ms. Rousselle will resent and begrudge, like watching "YouTube." No baby pandas for you! Get a job!

As I said, I don't know much about it, but I don't see these sorts of anecdotes as reliable ways to form an opinion. After welfare reform, doesn't TANF impose time limits and work requirements? Can there be any doubt that food stamps provide much-needed assistance for millions of Americans? Is either program breaking the budget? Yes, no, no. In fact, economists agree that food stamps provide economic stimulus. I don't have enough evidence to say that these programs are too generous or are being abused. I'll await a non-anecdotal argument on that. In the meantime, I'll continue to marvel how we resent the poor in this country but dare not question the extravagant riches of the obscenely wealthy, no matter how that wealth was acquired, no matter how much it is deserved by any proper moral reckoning.

The whole "we have too many college graduates" argument is fascinating to me.

First, because I knew very few in my group of college friends who were pursuing the classic "worthless" degrees. Not that such majors don't exist, but I wonder about the percentages.

Second, because the argument that we should stop sending so many people to college sounds very, very strange to someone who's just third-generation American. Is this the new American dream: That our children get less education than we did?

Third, because the notion that if only Americans stopped learning, they could take back jobs from Asia is ... well, it's loony. We do realize, don't we, that the reason companies move manufacturing to foreign countries isn't that they have dumber workers, but that the standard of living is so low that they can pay wages that in America wouldn't keep a dog fed?

The college grad with a degree in lesbian literature is on the way to becoming the new welfare queen in a Cadillac.

"We do realize, don't we, that the reason companies move manufacturing to foreign countries isn't that they have dumber workers, but that the standard of living is so low that they can pay wages that in America wouldn't keep a dog fed? ""

Actually, wages aren't necessarily the driving force. Regulations, or rather, lack of regulations and requirements are a bigger force. No EPA restrictions on the acid used to pickle steel, or on the emissions from steel plant furnaces. No OSHA requirements and reporting. Workers Comp? What's that?

And it's specious to derive that a college education is the ONLY form of education a person can get. You don't necessarily need to go to college to learn, and nowadays, it seems more and more that people are going to college by rote, and to party. And colleges are just handing out the grades and degrees to anyone who pays the tuition for a set period of time.

"So why not go all the way with this idea when it comes to education? Give every parent $10,000 a year, no strings attached, for each school-aged child in their house. They can home school and keep the dough, use it as a down payment on the priciest private academy, find a really cheap-o school and spend the rest on lottery tickets....the free market at work!
Who's on board with that idea?"

I'm wondering if (hoping that) you're just trying to show the libertarians among us the foolishness of their ideas, but if that's your aim, I'm guessing you've missed. I doubt Boris, MCN, Greg J, etc. have a problem with the picture you've painted.

ZORN REPLY -- It strikes me that this is in some way a variation on the school voucher issue: In that case, liberals want the state to limit how dollars earmarked for education are spent; conservatives favor the Greg J. approach, to a point, saying no, give parents a coupon to redeem at the school of their choice.
Greg J. and others who advocate just handing the needy a check and saying, "Here, buy candy, buy booze, buy cigarettes or buy the top-end cable TV package...if you end up starving to death, well, that's your fault."
So why not go all the way with this idea when it comes to education? Give every parent $10,000 a year, no strings attached, for each school-aged child in their house. They can home school and keep the dough, use it as a down payment on the priciest private academy, find a really cheap-o school and spend the rest on lottery tickets....the free market at work!
Who's on board with that idea?

GREG J REPLY -- I'm on board with that idea as long as I understand you correctly. As Boris points out, there is a problem with cash welfare payments as it affects children. I think that our child neglect/welfare laws could adequately address that if enforced properly.

I think I understand from your reply that parents given the voucher would still be on the hook to ensure that their children receive some level of education (whether it's K-8 or K-10 or whatever the individual state requires). In that case, I'm on board with you because the vast majority of parents are in a better position than Washington or Springfield to choose the appropriate type of education for their children. It's true that there are instances where that's not the case but with the state of public education today, it's hard to see how it would make the situation any worse.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether psychology majors should constitute 6% of all graduates (based on certain comments from my left-wing friends that number might not be so bad, actually), visual and performing arts to be over 5%, and English/literature to be close to 4%. When you add these liberal arts numbers up, you get to a big percentage.

Second, I'm not arguing that our children should receive less of an education than we did. I am arguing that a trade school can provide a much better education, in a lot of cases, than a pricey four year liberal arts college. Don't mistake a high price tag for a quality education.

Third, where did you see the argument that this has anything to do with trying to bring back manufacturing jobs from Asia? The real argument is that if we better align the needs of the market with our education dollars then it will improve employment in the U.S. We need more students in science, technology, engineering and math (the so-called "STEM" programs). These students aren't going to end up in low-level jobs. Other students would probably benefit more from attending DeVry and learning a trade than pursuing a degree in multicultural studies from Illinois State.

I promise to give a damn about poor folks eating too well immediately after I see that Boeing, Haliburton, Raytheon, et al. aren't misspending the godzillions of tax dollars that they get from the Pentagon.

@Zorn re. “Greg J. and others who advocate just handing the needy a check and saying, "Here, buy candy, buy booze, buy cigarettes or buy the top-end cable TV package...if you end up starving to death, well, that's your fault."

We often hear Eric and other seemingly moderate liberals talk reasonably about material success being to no small extent affected by luck, and the role of the income redistribution as being essentially a social insurance against such unpredictable ups and downs. When we look at the majority of people in need through that prism, we see grown-ups capable of making adult decisions, of handing their lives, responsible, motivated adults that got hit by unpredictable misfortunes be that a natural disaster or economic forces beyond anyone’s control or crystal ball.

But how does that view coexist with the implication in Eric’s reply above that the poor are poor because they are not responsible adults? If we believe that is not the case, we should not be afraid to provide income support and trust people to do the best for themselves with it (funny how when advocates of a more command and control society/economy want to be derisive, they substitute “free markets’ in place of “people”, but it is still people making decisions, not some alien disembodied “market force”). Those who do make bad choices with their income support are undeniably truly responsible for the consequences and they and no one else should be facing them (their children, as I already mentioned, excepted).

If however, we do believe that poor are poor because they are incapable of adult judgment, we should be treating them as not yet grown-up in all respects, including denying them the right to vote. However radical and hash that sounds, it seems to be an inescapable conclusion of the view that they can not do the right thing if given financial assistance without any strings attached. It is not what I believe, as I mostly believe the narrative of true misfortune the moderate liberals sell, that is before they do a complete flip, perhaps without even realizing it, by comments such as Zorn’s.

P.S.
The educational voucher issue was brought up by Eric in the same reply. He astutely recognized an important common thread: do adults need politicians/bureaucrats/technocrats acting as their parents/nanny?

However, that common thread is interesting for discussing the different views of the world and human nature, not for discussing education. "If you are going to do A with welfare, you ought to do the same with education" is not necessarily a valid way to get to the right conclusion about education. We may get to a similar conclusion anyway, but ought to get their by talking about education, not welfare.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.